This statement by the OP puts us at a bit of a dilemma. The camaro's origin was based on a 2x2 compact that was labeled as a pony car. The original term of "Muscle Car" was defined as an intermediate sized car with a large displacement engine. The subject GM cars (GTO, Chevelle SS396 & 454, Cutlass 442, Skylark GS, GSX; and later iterations of Buick GN, Monte Carlo SS, Grand Prix, and to be literal, the later day Grand Prix GTP, Lumina Z34, Cutlass Supreme International Series, Regal GS; and the last GM forbearers which include the Grand Prix GTP(?) and Monte Carlo SS fwd) were all larger than the camaro. So after all of that hot air, the camaro's concept doesn't fit the true definition of a muscle car.

On the other hand, if you don't count Chrysler's Charger 4-door sedan, with the absence of the intermediate class and the increased size of the current camaro, one could argue that the fifth gen is the size of the former muscle car class, and could possibly fit into this description.

So the dilemma is: Do you hold the camaro to its true origin as a pony car, or re-define it (due to its increased size) as a midsized muscle car??

Interesting......

You have a perspective, which I can see. I would, however, submit to you that the Pony Cars with big horsepower (i.e., Z28, 396/375 Camaro, 396/375 Nova, etc) are still subsets of the Muscle Car Category. No doubt about it. You wouldn't call the Yenko or COPO Camaro a Muscle Car based on the "class" you define. And Yenko made Chevelles too. All the "line extensions" with big power are "Muscle Cars"..... And, yes 340 Six Packs were considered Muscle Cars (be it not so big a muscle LOL) So Muscle Cars of the era were not exclusive to the body style, more based on the factory intentions of the motor installed. (YA HEARD!)... thanks OldScool, I borrowed it from ya!